Cognitive Load Effects on Early Visual Perceptual Processing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1464-9 Cognitive load effects on early visual perceptual processing Ping Liu1 · Jason Forte1 · David Sewell2 · Olivia Carter1 © The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018 Abstract Contrast-based early visual processing has largely been considered to involve autonomous processes that do not need the support of cognitive resources. However, as spatial attention is known to modulate early visual perceptual processing, we explored whether cognitive load could similarly impact contrast-based perception. We used a dual-task paradigm to assess the impact of a concurrent working memory task on the performance of three different early visual tasks. The results from Experiment 1 suggest that cognitive load can modulate early visual processing. No effects of cognitive load were seen in Experiments 2 or 3. Together, the findings provide evidence that under some circumstances cognitive load effects can penetrate the early stages of visual processing and that higher cognitive function and early perceptual processing may not be as independent as was once thought. Keywords Cognitive load · Early vision · Dual-task · Spatial attention · Working memory Introduction low-level visual perceptual mechanisms. The second stream focuses on understanding to what extent cognitive load may At any given moment, our brain is overwhelmed by affect early visual processing when there is no content incoming information from our sensory environment. At overlap between the two (de Fockert et al., 2001;Lavie,2005, the same time, our behavioral goals and the execution of 2010). The current study falls into the second category. actions need to be maintained. The ability of the brain Top-down attention mechanisms supporting perceptual to coordinate concurrent perceptual processing and higher information processing have been the subject of countless cognitive functions is crucial for us to behave in a coherent studies (Carrasco, 2011;Chenetal.,2014; Crist et al., 2001; and efficient manner in daily life. Gilbert & Li, 2013;Lietal.,2004, 2006). Visual attention The influence of cognitive processes on concurrent visual can be selectively directed to different visual properties such perceptual processing has been mainly explored in two as location, color, etc. The majority of such studies have seemingly related but independent literature streams. One looked at how visual spatial attention facilitates the pro- stream focuses on how working memory content can bias cessing of attended information and suppresses unattended concurrent visual processing when there is a content overlap information (Carrasco, 2011; Desimone & Duncan, 1995) between the two (Kosslyn et al., 1999; Scocchia et al., 2013; Whether spatial attention modulates early visual process- Serences et al., 2009). This line of research has provided ing was difficult to prove for more than two decades due to evidence for strong links between cognitive processes and the variety of visual tasks and methodologies employed in spatial attention studies (Carrasco, 2011; Zhaoping, 2014). The flow of visual perceptual processing is believed to Olivia Carter follow an approximately hierarchic feedforward path, i.e., [email protected] from early to high level vision. Each stage is associated Ping Liu [email protected] with its specific category of tasks that have been developed to rigorously assess the relevant level of visual process- 1 Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University ing (Marr, 1982; Zhaoping, 2014). Contrast sensitivity tasks of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia are generally considered to assess early processing stages. 2 School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Demonstrating spatial attention effects on early visual pro- St Lucia, Australia cessing with only behavioral measures has required rigorous Atten Percept Psychophys control of stimulus configuration and experimental method- Strasburger, 2005; Van der Lubbe & Keuss, 2001). The ology (Dosher & Lu, 2000; Herrmann et al., 2010;Lu& finding and design differences in the research raise the Dosher, 1998; Pestilli et al., 2011). For example, the tar- crucial question as to whether cognitive load can indeed get has to be presented alone free from any distractors and modulate early visual processing. external noise (Dosher & Lu, 2000; Lu & Dosher, 1998; The center-surround antagonistic organization of the Pestilli et al., 2011) and the stimulus size of the target needs receptive field of early visual neurons is thought to be to be carefully controlled in relation to the spatial attention fundamental to optimal contrast-based visual information distribution (Herrmann et al., 2010). processing. The center excitatory drive to the classical The majority of cognitive load studies, however, have receptive field (CRF) establishes a neuron’s basic stimulus not made a clear distinction between the visual tasks selectivity, which can be strongly modulated by the used to assess cognitive load on early versus high level surround inhibition from the extra-classical receptive field visual processing and this has led to some discrepancies (eCRF) in many neurons along the visual pathway (Adelson in the interpretations of results obtained. For example, & Bergen, 1991; Fujita et al., 1992; Hubel & Wiesel, 1962, findings from a class of studies employing flanker tasks 1965). This center-surround interaction has been proposed have been interpreted as suggesting that cognitive load to be one of the most fundamental underlying mechanisms doesn’t modulate early visual processing (de Fockert supporting the efficient encoding of raw visual inputs et al., 2001;Lavie,2005). Flanker tasks represent an (Heeger, 1992; Marr, 1976; Zhaoping, 2014). experimental paradigm known to be more closely associated Neurophysiological findings of top-down modulation with a higher-level visual mechanism, i.e., visual crowding effects on center excitation and surround inhibition suggest (Dayan & Solomon, 2010;Levi,2008;Levietal.,2002; that variations in top-down modulation strength lead to Strasburger, 2005). While these studies are interesting and differential effects on the final output of neural responses informative they cannot be used to rule out an impact of in early visual cortical neurons (Hupe et al., 1998, 2001; cognitive load on early visual processing. Nassi et al., 2013; Sandell & Schiller, 1982;Wangetal., Recently a few studies using early visual tasks have 2010). Specifically, inactivation of feedback to V1 neurons provided some initial indication that such tasks may be has been found to reduce responses in some neurons to sensitive to cognitive load. Cocchi et al. (2011) reported low-contrast stimuli confined to the CRF, suggesting that an unexpected finding that visual spatial working memory cortico-cortical feedback provides a weak, predominantly loads facilitated the performance of a concurrent but excitatory influence on the CRF (Hupe et al., 1998, 2001; independent visual grouping-by-proximity task. Similarly, Sandell & Schiller, 1982;Wangetal.,2010). In contrast, de Fockert and Leiser (2014) showed that high cognitive when assessed using stimuli that engage both the CRF and load enhanced collinear facilitation, which is an established eCRF, eliminating feedback results in strong and consistent early visual perceptual mechanism. The “facilitative” response facilitation, effectively reducing the strength of effects reported in Cocchi et al. (2011) and de Fockert and surround inhibition on center excitation in V1 neurons Leiser (2014) are at odds with the existing research (i.e., (Angelucci et al., 2002; Angelucci & Bullier, 2003; Nassi cognitive load and other dual-task studies) that suggests et al., 2013). Thus, theoretically in the presence of both cognitive load has no impact on concurrent early visual center excitation and surround inhibition, the final outputs processing (Pashler, 1994; de Fockert et al., 2001;Lavie, reflect the balance between these two forces in the absence 2005). However, the grouping-by-proximity task in Cocchi of spatial attention. et al. (2011) and the collinear facilitation task in de Fockert Spatial attention has been argued to shift the balance and Leiser (2014) differ considerably from the flanker between center excitation and surround inhibition, which tasks employed in cognitive load studies. Firstly, both the in turn alters the neural response to visual stimulation. grouping and the collinear facilitation tasks are generally The modulation effects have been characterized by many considered early visual tasks whereas flanker tasks are computational models (Cutzu & Tsotsos, 2003; Pestilli considered a high-level vision task. Secondly, there is et al., 2011; Reynolds & Heeger, 2009). For example, literature suggesting that the grouping and the collinear according to the normalization model of spatial attention facilitation tasks are facilitated by a more distributed visual (Reynolds & Heeger, 2009), the size of the attentional field spatial attention field (Ben-Av et al., 1992; Casco et al., determines how much surround inhibition enters into the 2005; Freeman et al., 2001, 2003; Han et al., 2005a, b; normalization process and, consequently, the final response Ito & Gilbert, 1999; Mack et al., 1992). In contrast, a intensity of a given neuron (Reynolds & Heeger, 2009). focused spatial attention field has been shown to improve The aim of the current study is to explore cognitive load performance on flanker tasks (Chen et al., 2014;Fang& effects on